djrhys

Hi,

I'm thinking of upgrading the forks on my Carrera Virtuoso LTD 2002.
It's currently running the stock aluminium forks that were on when i purchased the bike. I want to try and save as much weight as i can on my bike. (will be purchased new tubes, tyres). Do you think purchasing some more aero and lightweight forks would make a dramatic weight difference, and for the sake of £50-100 is it worth it?

I'm only 16 so please don't comment saying get the latest specialized s-work carbon frame with DI2 shifting.

Thanks!

demoncyclist

You have a 13 year old bike. An aluminum fork is not heavy to begin with, and replacing it with CF is not money well spent. Likewise, lighter weight tubes and tyres are only somewhat useful. Save your money and build a stronger motor. Put the money aside and save for a better bike later on.

Jiggle

I would figure out the size you need, length of steerer, diameter of steerer, then cruise ebay for da dealz. Carbon forks with al steerers go for cheap.

Wilfred Laurier

I would guess you would get little to no benefit from swapping the fork. Save the money for better tires.

dr_lha

The only real benefit I would see is that carbon forks may smooth out your ride a bit. For this reason many aluminium framed bikes these days come with carbon forks.

alcjphil

It is doubtful that a carbon fork in that price range will be any lighter than the forks you have now. Lower priced carbon forks have metal steer tubes and fork crowns. Full carbon forks are much lighter, sometimes half the weight of the low end offerings, but they tend to be much more expensive, 4-5 times the price of an entry level fork. That was the case a few years ago when I acquired a Look HSC5 all carbon fork which I installed on my son's Trek. The original carbon fork with an alloy steer tube was almost exactly twice as heavy as the Look fork. An aluminum fork might well be lighter than a low end carbon fork

cale

I agree one hundred percent. The weight savings aren't worth the swap but you'll ride longer and faster if you're more comfortable.

davidad

Neither myself or a friend could tell any difference with a carbon fork.
At 16 you are still maturing and can, with work, get stronger. The most important component on the bike is the engine.

cale

Clearly the ride longer and farther rule doesn't apply if you aren't more comfortable. I think many riders, myself included, benefit from improved comfort and that's why it is the norm to get a carbon fork on road bikes today. Even an "engine" requires comfort, in the form of a cooling system, which let's it run longer and faster.

cny-bikeman

Let's just say you were able to save some weight with a carbon fork you could afford. You would be doing quite well to save 100g+, or about 4 ounces. Assuming riding weight (you + bike) of only 160 lbs, that comes to a savings of .15% (don't miss the decimal point). The impact on speed and acceleration is even less than that. The time you spend researching, ordering and installing lighter parts can be better put to use getting in better shape, even in the winter.

davidad

What does the fork have to do with a cooling system? Fatter tires go a long way to making a ride more comfortable.

fietsbob

Spending money stimulates the economy.

wphamilton

I am as frugal as any, care naught about weight and little about road buzz, but given a choice I selected a carbon fork (aluminum steerer). Low end carbon fork beats low end aluminum, and not all that expensive.

cale

Human beings frequently run fine on bicycles without a dedicated cooling system. But they can't ride long without comfort. You chose the "engine" analogy so I went with what keeps a engine running at a comfortable temp.

I've owned steel and carbon fiber forks and it really depends on the fork. When I was in my twenties, a pro bike was made of steel throughout. I loved the way they rode. My first short wheelbase bike was a Centurion Ironman Expert. The seconds was a Casati Columbus SL racing bike. The Casati was heads and tails above the Ironman where fork comfort was concerned and on the same tires. The Ironman let every vibration up through the bars. The Columbus fork filtered vibrations much like a carbon fork that I like.

Al1943

Save your money.

dynaryder

Man,I wish I had you guys' wrists. I have mild CT,and have gotten rid of bikes because I couldn't deal with the alloy fork. I swapped the alloy fork on my old Fuji Absolute for a CF one,and noticed a major improvement. If you guys don't have an issue with alloy forks and skinny tires,you must have good wrists or perfect roads. For me,in DC,I would def make the swap.

Dfrost 

Pick the fork that lets you put in the largest tires, and run them at lower pressures.

My Klein had an aluminum fork, then a CF fork, and now a steel fork. Yes, the weights of the forks are noticeably different, but the biggest tire that can be accommodated makes the greatest difference in ride quality, and choosing a light, supple, low rolling resistance fatter tire gives as much or more performance improvement. And as all have said, the engine makes the biggest difference.

Al1943

The OP's questions are very well thought out and very clear clear. He wants a light weight bike and wants to know if a carbon fork will make a dramatic improvement over his aluminum fork. He's 16 and not ready for an all carbon bike.
I'm old, over the last twenty years I've owned bikes with steel forks, an aluminum fork, a carbon fork with steel steer tube, and three high quality all carbon forks. The all carbon forks are lighter and have some minor vibration dampening. The OP could probably reduce the weight of his bike by one pound or slightly more by upgrading to a carbon fork and maybe a lighter stem and bar.
I think a 16 year old bike enthusiast has far better places to spend his money than on a fork upgrade. He wants less weight on the bike, I don't think wider tires will help.

Wilfred Laurier

Simply switching from one material to another is no guarantee of any change. A carbon fork might be more stiff than some aluminum fork. I guarantee my old aluminum fork is more flexible than most carbon forks.

HillRider

The only real justification I can think of for changing the fork on the OP's bike is it's age (the fork, not the OP). Since the bike is a 2002 and the OP is 16, it's safe to assume he got it used unless he bought it when he was 3. So it has who knows how many miles with it's original owner and if it's been in any crashes.

Aluminum forks have a finite fatigue life, unlike steel or carbon, so if there is any question that he has a high-mileage fork, replacement is not a bad idea. I originally had an SR aluminum fork on my 1996 Litespeed and rode it for about 30,000 miles before beginning to wonder how much life it still had and decided a new one was in order. I replaced it with a Kestrel EMS Pro (carbon blades and crown, Cr-Mo steerer) which didn't save any significant weight and, like davidad, the ride difference was indistinguishable but the peace of mind was priceless.

Wilfred Laurier

Total BS. The 'fatigue limit' is the amount of stress that, below which, a material can be stressed an infinite number of times without suffering a fatigue failure. Steel has a fatigue limit, aluminum does not. However, there is no guarantee that any given steel fork is being used below its fatigue limit, nor any guarantee that an aluminum fork is being stressed at a level that will cause fatigue failure in any realistic amount of time.

As for carbon, many or most carbon forks have aluminum steerers, lugs, dropouts, etc, so if aluminum is somehow fatally flawed and doomed to become a time bomb, then so are most carbon forks.

Just like the poster above who claimed that a switch to carbon is necessary to avoid fatigue and discomfort to the wrists and shoulders without mentioning that some carbon forks are more rigid than some aluminum forks, you fail to mention that each fork, frame, riding style, rider position, and rider are different, and therefore blanket statements about the materials are meaningless.

Also, I have seen many broken aluminum frames from bikes that had aluminum forks, but I have not seen many broken aluminum forks at all, thus my experience would indicate that an aluminum fork generally has a longer life than the aluminum frame that it came with.

wphamilton

If I may interject, having no fatigue limit means that aluminum will eventually fail even for small amplitudes of stress. Steel won't fail for any number of these small stresses (below its fatigue limit), while aluminum will fail after a certain number of any stresses (no fatigue limit).

I thought you both had good points.

It shouldn't take much excuse - fatigue limit, damping, weight, etc - to choose an inexpensive carbon fork over a old aluminum one. As everyone is saying though, we shouldn't expect too much from that.

Al1943

I'll try to remember to not fly on any old aluminum airplanes. I surely do not want one to reach its fatigue limit while I'm on it.

obed7

considering the one specific goal the op listed, I would not suggest a carbon fork in his price range listed as worth doing.

nfmisso

Old Commercial aluminum planes (which means all that have been in commercial service for the past 75+ years, are inspected and scrapped when cracks start to develop if the cracked part can't be easily replaced. When we lived in OKC, we'd see a steady stream of old commercial planes come in for scrapping. There used to be several L-1011s just east of Amarillo, being scrapped.